Court dismisses challenge to assessment order & demand notice, stresses procedural compliance, truthfulness.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the assessment order and demand notice, emphasizing the petitioner's awareness of the proceedings and financial inconsistencies. The judgment highlighted the importance of active participation in legal proceedings, adherence to procedural requirements, and truthfulness in court representations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment order and demand notice dated December 24, 2012.
2. Allegation of assessment order not served upon the petitioner.
3. Petitioner's claim of unofficially obtaining a copy of the assessment order.
4. Failure to challenge the order before the appellate authority.
5. Petitioner's financial status and claim of being a small businessman.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order and demand notice dated December 24, 2012, along with subsequent notices. The court issued notice to the Revenue Department to respond to the petitioner's claim that the assessment order was not served upon him until recovery notices were issued. The petitioner alleged lack of awareness of the order, but the court found no evidence of an application for a copy, indicating the petitioner's knowledge of the order.

2. The Revenue Department filed a reply stating that the notice of demand was sent to the petitioner along with a recovery letter, contradicting the petitioner's claim of ignorance about the assessment order. The court noted the proper addressing and dispatch of the order, rejecting the petitioner's assertion of unofficially obtaining a copy. The court emphasized the presumption of regularity in government actions and the importance of challenging orders before the appellate authority.

3. The court reviewed the petitioner's conduct during the assessment proceedings, highlighting multiple notices served on the petitioner for hearing dates, which the petitioner either ignored or requested adjournments without valid reasons. The court emphasized the petitioner's duty to participate actively in legal proceedings and not assume deferment of assessments without valid grounds.

4. The petitioner's claim of being a small businessman unable to pay the substantial demand amount was dismissed by the court. Evidence revealed the petitioner's involvement in significant financial transactions contradicting his portrayal as financially constrained. The court concluded that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands, denying any discretionary relief and dismissing the petition without costs.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition challenging the assessment order and demand notice, emphasizing the petitioner's awareness of the proceedings and financial inconsistencies. The judgment highlighted the importance of active participation in legal proceedings, adherence to procedural requirements, and truthfulness in court representations.

---